Would You Dare?

Japan’s Kodai Senga is reportedly en route to Flushing as you know, and he’ll be wearing a different number than the 41 he rocked while a member of the Fukuoka Softbank Hawks. I think there’s a good shot he winds up wearing 18, a number traditionally associated with Ace pitchers in Japan, and happens to be available since Nick Plummer departed.

One other available number comes to mind: 48. Do you think the Mets ought to mothball Jacob deGrom‘s number, or give it away? deGrom is a special case of his class of pitchers. Steven Matz‘s 32, Matt Harvey‘s 33 and Noah Syndergaard‘s 34 all found their way onto other guys’ backs pretty rapidly. Me, I’d be okay if the Mets reissued 48 but would feel better were it for an organization comer and not some reliever who bounces between Syracuse and New York.

Is there an appropriate period of time before you’d issue it again? One full season seems appropriate. By then at least the Rangers will have won the World Series.


  • Twitter
  • del.icio.us
  • Digg
  • Facebook
  • Technorati
  • Reddit
  • Yahoo Buzz
  • StumbleUpon


  1. Stu Baron says:

    I was thinking Senta might end up rocking Chris Bassitt’s no. 40. Just an uneducated guess.

  2. Matt B says:

    I actually think 48 ends up never being issued again and is eventually retired. He is an all time great Met. And if he puts up a few very good seasons in Texas, and ends up HOF bound, he obviously goes in as a Met. We’ll see…

  3. Jim A says:

    I don’t like the idea of putting a number in mothballs. Either retire it or issue it. In deGrom’s case, I say issue it.

  4. Matt B says:

    I don’t like mothballing numbers, either, like 7 and 8. Those numbers should not be retired, so assign them. I feel deGrom is different, in that there is a very good chance his number gets retired. 9 dominant years, and 2 CY awards. He is better than Koosman ever was. Higher war in 9 seasons compared to Koosman’s 12 season’s as a Met. If the Mets had won a World Series in Jake’s time here, there would be no question about it being retired.

  5. Arthur says:

    It’s a slightly tougher call than it was for Wright, who retired as a Met. However there are precedents. The two greatest Mets, Seaver and Piazza both played for other teams after leaving the Mets, but the Mets never issuedvthe numbers again even while they were still active players. And who knows how long deGrom will play for Texas? So I think it’s an easy call not to reissue 48.

  6. Arthur Malkin says:

    The Mets set a precedent when they did not issue Seaver’s 41, or Piazza’s 31 after they left the Mets. So I would not be surprised if they don’t issue 48. If he goes to the HOF it would be as Met. Also, I didn’t notice but has no Met worn 7 since Reyes?

  7. Scott says:

    The Mets website has him in 34

  8. Stu Baron says:

    Looks like no. 34.

  9. Give it away immediately! He pushed his way out of here after being mostly in rehab for the past two years for no other reason that pure greed. Let’s stop honoring every last guy who had good years for us.

    BTW – I disagreed with Koosman (not all time great), Hernandez (close, but not enough years with Mets, and no HOF), Mays (was a great Giant, not a great Met), or even Hodges and Stengel. You have to earn your HOF as a Met to retire it in my book. As for managers, win 5 championships as a manager, and then we can talk.

    Retire too many numbers and then it’s not an honor. Look at how the Yankees have watered it down. Seaver. Piazza. That’s it.

  10. Stu Baron says:

    Looks like 4 is there for Correa. Holy sh*t!

  11. swordfish868686 says:

    48 will be held a few years til next starting pitcher prospect ( Tidwell, Allan, Ziegler, Hamel, Vasil ) cracks starting rotation

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *